Barring definition of a separate mechanism (do you mean a separate IANA
mechanism for registration of IRI schemes?), I assume we should (1)
proceed with registration of a URI scheme in accordance with established
procedures and (2) define the scheme in terms of URI syntax rather than
IRI syntax. #1 seems straightforward but I remain somewhat confused
about #2 since previous IESG feedback indicated that it would be
preferable in our case to re-use the transformation rules already
specified in RFC 3987.
Peter
Ted Hardie wrote:
> Hi Larry,
> I think that it's going to be confusing saying that
> some URI schemes use IRI syntax. I think it needs to be a
> separate discussion and mechanism.
> Just my two cents,
> Ted
>
>
>
> At 1:14 PM -0700 8/22/05, Larry Masinter wrote:
>
>>Maybe we should address this in the URI scheme registration
>>document--that schemes could be defined in terms of "IRI" syntax,
>>using RFC 3987 rules to transform them to URI syntax.
>>
>>Right now, the guidelines don't really mention that as
>>a possibility.
>>
>>Even so, it should still be called a "URI scheme", even
>>if it is defined using "IRI syntax".
>>
>>Looking at RFC 3920, does the xmpp URI scheme assume
>>that you're using the TCP binding? Would there be a different
>>scheme for a binding that uses polling over HTTP?
>>Is the "xmpp" scheme only for XMPP version 1.0, or is
>>the version negotiated independently?
>>
>>Larry
>
>